Jump to content

Talk:Malaysia Airlines Flight 17/Archive 5

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7→Archive 10

MOS:FLAG

My understanding of MOS says that at a minimum, we need to remove the flags from the "Reactions" sections. We are already linking the name of the country as the first word of each comment, and the flags are distracting. This isn't a competition table, so the flags add nothing to the reader in the way of enhancing the readability. The inverse is actually true. As I'm admin'ing here, I won't make the edit myself and ask for a consensus to be developed, one way or the other, with a simple, non-verbose poll.

  • The MOS is not so clear on the matter, the MOS states "Flag icons may be relevant in some subject areas, where the subject actually represents that country, government, or nationality". Not to go into otherstuff but we have had these discussions before on almost every article that has had a reaction section added to it. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:14, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
I suppose you've only read MOS:FLAG, and not WP:ICONDECORATION? RGloucester — ☎ 17:00, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
I have read WP:ICONDECORATION, see my comment towards DennisBrown. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:02, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Sorry, but whoever wrote that page is a moron. There's an abundance of research that says the visual cortex processes images, such as flag icons, many times faster than the written word. Therefore, it strikes me that if you're going to format these reactions as a list of countries, and you aren't even going to put that list into alphabetical order!, then flag icons will help readers quickly identify each country in the list. It will also help them quickly identify the entries that aren't countries at all (Novorossiya, UN, IATA). That said, this will probably be redundant if the proposal above, to remove them all, succeeds. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RoryMig (talk • contribs) 15:53, 20 July 2014‎
  • Oppose (But No reason to be impolite.) In my experience, the versions where the flags were removed were much harder to grasp. The flag in this case makes it clearer than the dots where paragraphs end and the next response starts. So in this case I would prefer the flags to stay; unless some other equally visually compelling structuring is provided (or the list is dramatically reduced making visual structuring less important).
PS alphabetical order would be tricky here as in this case this would mean that the countries most involved would be somewhere in the middle of the list because of their names. Arnoutf (talk) 16:05, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support. The manual of style says the flags should not be here. If 'scientific research' says the manual of style is wrong, take it to the manual of style talk page. - Crosbie 16:17, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
Knowledgekid87 - apologies. I hate the flags, but the MOS is indeed unclear. I withdraw my vote for being too hasty. - Crosbie 16:36, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
WP:ICONDECORATION - This isn't an international football match. In this context, they are being used for decoration only, which is against MOS. You aren't conveying information, you are making it purdy. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 16:29, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Did you even bother to read that page? Given that the list is not alphabetical, it's pretty obvious that the icons are being used for "navigational function" and as "visual cues that aid the reader's comprehension".

"serve as visual cues that aid the reader's comprehension, or improve navigation" As I said above they serve as a visual instead of a wall of text. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:36, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
How exactly do these flags "improve navigation"? A bullet point would do the same, as ICONDECORATION states. RGloucester — ☎ 17:06, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
Most people don't even know what flag refers to what country. They just provide visual clutter, and are redundant. Images are not a substitute for prose, and we have no need to decorate this article with little baubles. RGloucester — ☎ 16:30, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
Well, what about those who do know their flags? Why do you care if there is something that might help some people and not really have an effect on everyone else? Dustin (talk) 16:32, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

"Most people don't even know what flag refers to what country" - prove it. I'd say that learning what flag belongs to what country is pre-school stuff, so what you're basically doing is assuming the average reader of Wikipedia has a level of education below pre-school. Which is quite obviously nonsense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RoryMig (talk • contribs) 16:38, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Also, regarding "Images are not a substitute for prose", we are not replacing the prose with images, so I do not believe it really applies. Dustin (talk) 16:35, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
They don't help anyone, because it is properly written in prose. You won't find flags scattered around the Britannica. They are in violation of the MoS. It does apply, because it is redundancy. The prose describes them, and hence, there is no need for images. RGloucester — ☎ 16:37, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
Who is "Anyone"? This is not Britannica. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:41, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment If the flags are removed here it really baffles me on how different each article can be, Is there a WP:PRECEDENT? I am really thinking of going to propose there be a mention in the MOS regarding reactions sections as it looks like people are taking the MOS and are trying to take out of it that flags cant be used in reactions sections. If this is true then other articles should follow suit but I feel there should be some kind of consensus put into place for this. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:33, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
MOS:FLAG was arrived at by consensus. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:38, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
The problem is that MOS:FLAG does not address reactions sections in articles. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:43, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
(edit conflict) What are you talking about? If you mean consensus to remove the flags, no, this currently looks more like no consensus. Dustin (talk) 16:44, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
@RGloucester: I was replying to AndyTheGrump, not Knowledgekid87. That's why I didn't indent farther to the right. Dustin (talk) 17:25, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
He means that guidelines were agreed upon by consensus, and hence, a local consensus cannot defy the greater consensus of the guidelines per WP:Local consensus]. RGloucester — ☎ 16:46, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
I think we can all agree on that, my proposal is to add to the MOS covering reactions sections as it would apply to all articles. Im tired of seeing the wheel reinvented here. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:48, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
If you'd like to do that, do it at the appropriate page. As it stands now, the guidelines do not say that. RGloucester — ☎ 16:50, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
(edit conflict × 2) @RGloucester: Please see WP:INDENT. You are messing up the formatting. Also, that argument I would consider to be invalid because the MoS is unclear. Dustin (talk) 16:51, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support removal; Oppose the use of the cute little icons. Visually distracting. That MOS:FLAG doesn't specifically forbid its use here doesn't mean it should be allowed. Drmies (talk) 16:52, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
How is it "Visually distracting"? That's not a clear reason and ought to be disregarded prior to further explanation. Dustin (talk) 16:53, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
Just saying here but your Oppose should be Support if you are against the flags being here. As for the visual bit I have already provided reasoning above. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:56, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Thanks. "Visually distracting" is a perfectly clear reason: it means that someone (me) thinks that the icons distract from the reading of the text. It's a well-accepted argument as well, at least according to all those editors who put MOS:FLAG together (I am not one of those). So you may have provided reasoning, but there's ample reasoning against your reasoning elsewhere. Drmies (talk) 17:39, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
  • I guess we just have to decide who has the better argument then. On the one hand, we have 'I get easily distracted by colours' and 'nobody knows their flags anyway', versus the fact that, if scientific research is anything to go by, they are in this context (an unsorted list of countries), quite obviously navigational aids which aid reader comprehension, and therefore are in fact explicitly allowed for by the policy. It's a puzzler, it really is. RoryMig (talk) 18:29, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
  • I'm going to close this, even though I voiced my own opinion in it (for removal!)--I'm closing it as "no consensus", meaning there is no consensus for the flag icons to be removed. This also takes into account Kelapstick's argument for keeping the flags, which he voiced on my talk page but couldn't get in because of edit conflicts. I suggest that someone post on the talk page for the MOS to see if an explicit allowance for "official reactions" be added to the list of allowable uses--keeping it here is too local, given that it's the MOS that's at stake, and distracts from more important issues. As a side note, of course it can easily be argued that there's "official representation" here--there is no such argument for the victims, who represent nothing (except for tragedy and loss), and "flagging" them is actually a greater violation of MOS:FLAG. But that's by the by. For now, again, there is no consensus to remove the flag icons, and let's leave it at that: this page is busy enough already. Drmies (talk) 19:05, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
I've added an edit notice to the effect that there is no consensus for the removal of the flags. Mjroots (talk) 22:04, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

SBU

On a side note, the is an Internet hype about SBU wiretaps of the separatists being forged. The version I saw was about upload/record date being earlier than the plane crash. Any information on that?

Yeah, it's Youtube bullshit.Volunteer Marek (talk) 13:45, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
Is YouTube really of any relevance as a source in this case? Spaceinvadersaresmokinggrass (talk) 14:38, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
I think it is, because it can serve as almost trusted time-stamp source. --Mykhal (talk) 20:40, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
What I meant is that WP can state a YouTube video for sources, but I don't think it can affirm the case with such a video. I mean, it's different from real trusted news sources. Spaceinvadersaresmokinggrass (talk) 23:26, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Yutube is good if High commisioner to refuges confirmig this is her voice (abot who kill who). Or Mecrekel say *f* UE nicht gut, commenting VF Nulland insight in future 'election' results. 99.90.196.227 (talk) 14:31, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Your argument is not wholly convincing, alas. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:20, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
UPDATE: the youtube-generated timestamp is the upload time (UTC), but of the previous day (-24h). Obviously, youtube servers are generating the creation date like it was taken 24 hours before the upload. --Mykhal (talk) 08:53, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
The time diff was -21 hours. Timestamp is UTC. Cadwallader (talk) 22:18, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Isnt MH 17 technically the deadliest shootdown on a commercial airliner?

I have included three links below to support this. http://www.financialexpress.com/news/malaysia-airlines-mh17-shot-down-top-5-deadliest-attacks-on-airliners/1271130 http://www.torontosun.com/2014/07/17/top-5-deadliest-attacks-on-commercial-airliners http://world.einnews.com/article__detail/214431219?lcode=4ah0VeoaPs62GaRlQf5LNA%3D%3D

And I was also wondering if this fact could be added to the article; as overall it seems much more significant than the fact that it was "the deadliest air incident in the Ukraine, the deadliest involving a Boeing 777 and the deadliest involving Malaysian airlines." Also, isn't it reasonable to say that it was the third deadliest aviation attack overall, after 9/11 and Air India Flight 182? Could this be added as well? Undescribed (talk) 19:31, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)x3 :You'd have to be careful about what criterion you use for "deadliest" and "airline attack". 9/11 is only the deadliest if you count all 4 airplanes as one and count in the people who died who were not on the plane but in the WTC and Pentagon. KonveyorBelt 19:31, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

So therefore wouldn't it fit the "overall deadliest" criteria? Undescribed (talk) 22:23, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

The September 11 attacks were not shot down, they were flown into buildings. --kelapstick(bainuu) 20:18, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
I would argue against subcategorizing as it will always biggest/deadliest/etc. if you define the category small enough (e.g. it definitely is the deadliest Boeing 777-200ER shot down with BUK missiles over eastern Ukraine but due to the small category also the only one) Arnoutf (talk) 20:22, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 20 July 2014

...terrorists removed 38 bodies from the crash site in order to extract from the bodies exploded parts of the rocket used to shoot the plane and destroy the evidence.

→

...attackers removed 38 bodies from the crash site in order to extract from the bodies exploded parts of the rocket used to shoot the plane and destroy the evidence.

Shooting down a neutral civilian plane is dastardly by any standard, but this use of 'terrorists' is inconsistent with the tone of the article at this time.   — C M B J   18:23, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Are quotes needed? That seems to be the first word of the (Ukranian) headline in the source given to support that statement. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:32, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
The underlying issue is that the statement is being used in the article to describe a specific factual event (recovery of remains), not the source's broader disposition. The article may very well use this terminology in the near future, but for the moment, it's editorially inconsistent.   — C M B J   19:40, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
I don't read Ukrainian, and Google translate seems to fail quite abysmally at that page. But as far as I can see that source uses the word "Терористи". So I think you are absolutely right - the paraphrasing here is a bit too close and a more neutral word should be used. Otherwise, as an alternative, quote marks should be used. I'm also concerned that what is being presented as a fact is supported only by one Ukrainian-language source. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:32, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
In case no one has told you, (or me). The text has been changed to: "On 19 July 2014 Andriy Lysenko, the spokesman of the National Security and Defense Council of Ukraine claimed that the insurgents removed 38 bodies from the crash site in order to extract from the bodies exploded parts of the rocket used to shoot the plane and destroy the evidence.". But still the same single Ukrainian source, which I'm surprised has been allowed. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:29, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
 Done. Text has been changed. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:33, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

"Terrorist"

I very strongly disagree with the phrasing of the following sentence

"On 19 July 2014 Andriy Lysenko, the spokesman of the National Security and Defense Council of Ukraine announced to the press that the terrorists removed 38 bodies from the crash site in order to extract from the bodies exploded parts of the rocket used to shoot the plane and destroy the evidence.[100]"

Please remove at least the indirect quote and make it direct. Terrorist is a very strong and subjective term that i think should be used very carefully. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PremiumBananas (talk • contribs)

I'm not sure if you are right or not, but the Ukrainian government refers to the rebels as "terrorists" which might be why other sources do(though not all). 331dot (talk) 09:02, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
Okay.. but.. there isn't even a single, clear, definition of "terrorist" Terrorism
Could we have quotation marks inserted there then? Between "the terrorists" and "the evidence"? Thanks, Spaceinvadersaresmokinggrass (talk) 14:40, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
No, because that would imply a direct quote and that is not the words he used. Translation makes a direct quote a bit difficult but not impossible. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 14:48, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
What about just quotating "terrorists"? Thanks, Spaceinvadersaresmokinggrass (talk) 15:12, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
That would be against MOS here, we don't qualify words that way as it would imply a POV by us. Many sources are using the term terrorists, so we are consistent by using it here. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 15:17, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
I'm afraid I have to agree with the original poster here. Through the way we are including the word "terrorist" in our paraphrase, we are creating the impression that our sentence presupposes the fact that they indeed are terrorists, which is clearly problematic. It is also quite unnecessary, because in a paraphrase like this it would be quite legitimate to replace one word with another as long as its reference is unambiguously the same. (For example, if there was a country where people routinely refer to the USA as "the Empire of Evil", and the president of that country publicly announced that he was going to meet "with the president of the Empire of Evil" some time, we would still not say that "XYZ announced he was going to meet with the president of the Empire of Evil"; we would still say that "he announced he was going to meet with President Obama"). The use of "terrorist" also has the disadvantage that, in this context, it suggests a sense of "terrorism" different from the intended one. Nobody has seriously claimed that the shooting down was a classical "terrorist act" (in the sense of deliberate murder of innocent civilians, as in 9/11 etc.); the Ukrainian authorities routinely call the fighters "terrorists" not because the shot the plane down, but because of their role in the armed rebellion. So, either quote this literally, or, preferably, reword it using our legitimate editorial discretion in choosing a neutral wording while getting the facts across as intended. Lysenko ... "announced to the press that the rebels removed 38 bodies from the crash site". Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:56, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
Like Dennis said, the problem here doesn't stem from just how that individual addressed the rebels. It stems from whether or not the medias use the term "terrorists". I doubt that there are serious worldwide medias who would use the term "Empire of Evil" to imply USA. So, this is different. However, the conflict lays between citing the source (and what it said) and keeping neutrality of WP. Right now I'm thinking that maybe inserting a [sic.] next to that word would help? Thanks, Spaceinvadersaresmokinggrass (talk) 16:10, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
No, "sic" is for marking orthographical mistakes in literally quoted text, that's a different thing. And as for what sources use, we always have to keep in mind that sources, even formally reliable ones, have POVs, and the fact that some sources carry a POV is no excuse for us to simply adopt it. This is from a Ukrainian news source, which of course expresses a POV perspective conformant with that of the Ukrainian government. (Just as, in my made-up example, reliable news media of the country in question would also carry the "Empire of Evil" terminology.) rFut.Perf. ☼ 16:19, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
  • I have to disagree with Dennis's assessment that using "terrorist" is in line with the Manual of Style. WP:TERRORIST would beg to differ. As Fut. Perf. says, sources carry a POV. It isn't our job to reflect that POV. We must adhere to WP:NPOV, unlike such journalistic sources. Western sources, especially, have refrained from using the word "terrorist" outside of quotation marks in reference to the insurgents. I cannot see it appropriate to use that word. In fact, I would argue that it is almost never appropriate, as the word "terrorist" does not convey any meaning that cannot be conveyed with more neutral wording. All it does is add pathos, as WP:LABEL states. RGloucester — ☎ 16:27, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
  • I've changed the wording. But I now see yet another problem with that passage. According to our paraphrase, the Ukrainian official told the press the insurgents removed bodies "in order to extract from the bodies exploded parts of the rocket". It may well be the case that the official said this, but it's an implausible claim to make – since he can't look into the insurgents' minds, he cannot possibly have any way of knowing what their true intentions are in doing what they do. The best he can realistically have been doing is to speculate that this is what the insurgents might intend. How can we re-word this in order to not create the impression of fact here? Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:07, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
I think the word "claimed" in that sentence says it all. No further adding is required. Spaceinvadersaresmokinggrass (talk) 23:02, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

audio "unconfirmed"

"Unconfirmed" should be replaced with attribution, namely attribution to Ukrainian authorities. As far as the Ukrainians are concerned, it's confirmed. And also according to the U.S. given the official U.S. statement: "Audio data provided to the press by the Ukrainian security service was evaluated by Intelligence Community analysts who confirmed these were authentic conversations between known separatist leaders, based on comparing the Ukraine-released internet audio to recordings of known separatists." Now there's always going to be some editors who say the U.S. government is an unreliable source. We do not have to indulge that view by declaring "unconfirmed" despite the U.S. statement of confirmation. We also don't have to go to the other extreme and call it "confirmed" just because the U.S. says it is. We rather simply note that the audio came from Ukraine and the U.S. believes it authentic. Those readers who think those two governments cannot be trusted are not being told they are mistaken. At the same time, readers who believe there has been confirmation, as the U.S. believes, are also not being told they are mistaken (if we use attribution instead of "unconfirmed").--Brian Dell (talk) 18:18, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Could you please formulate a specific edit request suggestion so that we could discuss it?--Ymblanter (talk) 18:48, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
I believe what Brian meant was to remove the "unconfirmed" adjective from the frame describing SBU recording. First confirmation is that it was statement of official agency of Ukraine; second is the linked US confirmationofficial U.S. statement; third is confirmation from the separatists themselves[1]. Pawel Krawczyk (talk) 19:56, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
How about, in the sentence beginning with "An unconfirmed phone call took place between..." replace the first few words with "According to phone calls allegedly captured by Ukrainian authorities, between..."
Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:54, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Is this Talk page only supposed to be used for discussing which i's to dot and which t's to cross? You see yourself as just taking dictation like a secretary, Ymblanter? I should think my fellow editors here can operate on a more editorial level as befits the title "editor". It's already specific enough to take action with respect to the page: replace "unconfirmed" with the appropriate attribution (e.g. "Ukraine claimed"), and add the (attributed) view of the U.S. that there has been confirmation. Unlock the page so I can edit if you have no objections in principle to my argument here. If you then don't like the details you'd remain free to change my editing, no? Marek gives an example of what can be done here. Other examples may be equally acceptable.--Brian Dell (talk) 19:57, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

This is a really unhelpful comment from your side. You perfectly know that if I, as admin, would edit a protected page introducing info which was not suggested at the talk page, anybody can take me to ANI and eventually desysop. Anyway, now that the page has been unprotected, and you can edit yourself.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:05, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
And you know perfectly well that your hands were not as tied as you pretend they were. You've got three editors here which would have given you a clear mandate to proceed. Nyttend deleted more than 20% of the article after he himself locked it down, and I assure you there were no explicit instructions to do that. Indeed, part of that deletion was reversed after the community complained (most of the rest is in the process of getting reversed) and he's still got the admin bit last time I checked. More importantly you could have done what Lowellian did and unlocked the article so we need not engage in this "spell it out" nonsense. In any case, this is not to re-litigate the past, but to invite you to reconsider the cost to the quality of Talk page discussion before supporting full protection again.--Brian Dell (talk) 23:47, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 19 July 2014

I request the removal of the "dubious — discuss" tag from the map showing the crash site and approximate launch location published by the NYT. There are some editors who feel, roughly speaking, that published accounts based on information or claims made by the current Ukrainian government should not be treated as reliable sources. My understanding is that part of WP's proper role is to report, not question, mainstream discourse. Thus any NPOV concerns about lending too much weight to Ukraine's claims could be addressed by attribution (e.g., "approximate area of missile launch according to Ukrainian Council of National Security and Defense") — personally, I question whether even that much is warranted — and by properly weighted reflection of opposing published views. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 00:20, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

I have gone ahead and done this. Also see here. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 00:22, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 20 July 2014

Please add the following under Recovery of casualties: "On 20 July 2014, Ukrainian emergency workers began loading the remains of the passengers of MH17 into railcars for transportation and identification. Workers were observed by armed seperatists. The remains of 100 people are still missing." Source: Wall Street Journal Nathan121212 (talk) 17:04, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

No, there was an official 3rd party (rather than Russian or Ukrainian) statement that "Drunken -- I mean literally, drunken -- separatist soldiers are piling bodies into trucks unceremoniously and disturbing the evidence," and that "airplane parts have been removed," by rebels to hinder the independent investigation [2]. That is what should be included. My very best wishes (talk) 17:23, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
John Kerry interview. Meh, almost an opportunity for a great joke. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 00:45, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Protected edit request on "deadliest shootdown incident"

I have included three links below to support that this was the deadliest aircraft shoot down in history http://www.financialexpress.com/news/malaysia-airlines-mh17-shot-down-top-5-deadliest-attacks-on-airliners/1271130 http://www.torontosun.com/2014/07/17/top-5-deadliest-attacks-on-commercial-airliners http://world.einnews.com/article__detail/214431219?lcode=4ah0VeoaPs62GaRlQf5LNA%3D%3D

And I was also wondering if this fact could be added to the article; as overall it seems much more significant than the fact that it was "the deadliest air incident in the Ukraine, the deadliest involving a Boeing 777 and the deadliest involving Malaysian airlines." Also, isn't it reasonable to say that it was the third deadliest aviation attack overall, after 9/11 and Air India Flight 182? Could this be added as well?

Why are you making a semi-protected edit request? You have well over ten edits and four days since registration. Dustin (talk) 03:35, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Oops. It was fully protected not long ago. Sorry about that. Undescribed (talk) 03:38, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

1RR proposal

I propose that this article be restricted to 1RR given the issues it has had. This can be reported to ANI or be monitored if broken. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:17, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

I'd be opposed to that, per what I just wrote in the thread above. There are more useful and more flexible ways of applying discretionary sanctions than to bind them to an arbitrary bright-line revert count rule. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:25, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
(edit conflict) That is going to be very hard to enforce if editing picks back up to the level it has been. United States Man (talk) 20:28, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
I've created an edit notice for the page. Admins, feel free to tweak it. 1RR may be added per the instructions at Template:Ds/editnotice. Unfortunately, there doesn't seem to be a way to impose, say, 2RR or add the standard 3RR to the template (I tried this one, it don't work). Mjroots (talk) 20:35, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
Oppose implementing a one-revert rule. We just need to be more careful in watching for users who appear to have violated the three-revert rule, and so we don't end up with a lot of users being blocked, try to warn them before they ever break the 3RR in the first place. Dustin (talk) 20:55, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
  • I support this proposal, if editor's know that a 1RR has been implemented, then it forces discussion onto the talk page for consensus. For those editor's who feel they need to ignore the 1RR and continually revert without discussing, then they can be appropriately sanctioned.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 21:27, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

1RR is better than locking the article down. But 3RR violators should be getting max discipline before we start demanding 1RR.--Brian Dell (talk) 23:51, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

The problem with 1RR on an article such as this which gets edited a lot is that it's very easy to break it on accident or due to edit conflicts. Often times I make a change, save, then go back and look over to make sure everything's alright. Then often make a follow up change. If somebody jumps in an reverts me in the interim - which happens if article is being edited heavily - I revert them and follow through with my correction. That would show up as a 1RR break right there even though it really should be 1 revert via 2 consecutive edits. And then edit conflicts and stuff... I'd rather see it stay full protected.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:23, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

@Volunteer Marek:: You mean, you would rather see it fully protected than semi-protected with a one-revert rule? Dustin (talk) 04:34, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
Yes. I look at it this way. You can either waste your time articulating requests for protected edits on the talk page. Or you can waste your time reverting and cleaning up after brand new WP:BATTLEGROUND accounts, returned sockpuppets of banned users, SPA accounts, generally disruptive trolls, incompetent twelve year olds etc. on the article itself. Either way, time is going to be wasted on an article such as this, but personally I'd rather waste my time in the former way than in the latter. And the article would be better for it.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:06, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
Oppose - IMHO, there are three roles that editors of a big traffic controversial article tend to play:
  • Providers of new info - they are often new editors with strong biases
  • POV pushers/checkers - people mostly concerned with political bias of the article
  • Copy-editors - people making a readable article compliant to wiki standards out of various contributions. It includes removing unreferenced, other inappropriate and duplicating entries, rearrangements of the material, etc.
Without work of the third group a high-traffic article soon becomes an unreadable discussion forum rather than a comprehensible prose. 1RR significantly hinder the work of the third group (as almost every copy-editing effort can be seen as a revert) and that is not that we want to achieve. Alex Bakharev (talk) 05:36, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Collapsed version of 2013–2014 unrest in Ukraine

I'm sure I saw {{2013–2014 unrest in Ukraine}} on this page in a collapsed state at some stage, but I can't find it in the history, and with a little bit of checking I haven't found how it would have been implemented. I know it would be against WP:COLLAPSE, but I'd prefer it to be in the article and collapsed than not in the article to "fix the appearance of this template".

And while I tried to confirm how to do this User:Illegitimate Barrister has put the campaign box back in its place, exactly what I was trying to avoid :-( Mark Hurd (talk) 04:40, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

The template {{2013–2014 unrest in Ukraine}} was removed by me because it was pushing the passenger/crew by nationality box too far to the left. Dustin (talk) 05:19, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, I know why you removed it. I tried putting the table of "People on board" on the LHS but that looked no good in the preview.
I just didn't want the template to be removed completely. For the next ten hours, at least there's a reminder of it here. Mark Hurd (talk) 06:03, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
@Markhurd: I am not sure, but if you want the bot to wait longer before archiving, I think you might be able to use a fake timestamp with a later time. I believe that if you sign without a timestamp (you use three tildes instead of four), the bot won't ever archive it, but I don't think we want this discussion to be permanent. In any case, I do think that there should an option to collapse the table or something. There doesn't appear to be any other suitable location in the article to put {{2013–2014 unrest in Ukraine}} in its current state. Dustin (talk) 06:13, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Please change "Malaysian actress Shuba Jaya" to "Malaysian actress Shuba Jaya". I believe she may meet our criteria for notability as an actress and I've created a page for her. -A1candidate (talk) 22:09, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

 Done. It has already been done. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:12, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
I have moved the article to "Shuba Jay", as that seems to be what both imdb and her own website use. HandsomeFella (talk) 08:13, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Should this be here?

"However, in a recent article by Paul Craig Roberts, and in contrast to most main-stream media reports, Roberts is of the opinion that - mistake or otherwise - it was the Ukrainian military who are most likely responsible for the downing of MH17.[162]"-- Source barely notable, referenced article full of unreferenced assertions and assumptions some of which would be laughable if there was anything about this to laugh about, and seems to have been shoved randomly onto the end of the article.

No. I've removed it. Please do not restore without a proper source. --John (talk) 08:54, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

The Obama pic

I boldly removed the image of Obama on the phone, on the basis that it demonstrates very little about the plane crash, and this isn't really a major event for the US anyway. And there's no evidence that he's talking to anyone, let alone who the caption says he's talking to. Someone restored the image without even an Edit summary, so I don't know their reasoning. There's mine above. What purpose does that image serve? HiLo48 (talk) 09:01, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Map and timeline for final minutes

According to FlightRadar24 [ http://www.flightradar24.com/data/flights/mh17/#3d6095b ] the last transponder puts MH17 almost exactly overhead the town of Snizhne at 1321 UTC, hdg: 118, 490kts 33,000 ft. This would indicate that MH17 turned back on itself to reach the crash-site near the village of Hrabove. The maps do not show this. Additionally, one map shows loss of contact at 1315 (ATC  ??) and the other at 1321 (transponder ??) which is a bit confusing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Montenegroman (talk • contribs)

  • PLEASE sign your comments, folks. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 16:48, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Is flightradar24.com a reliable source? I know they have a stub here on Wikipedia, but I have no idea if they pass RS. This is moot, otherwise. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 16:54, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
    • Hard to say, Dennis. We have tons and tons of those sites reporting primary data that used to be Well Hidden From Us, The General Public. I suppose this is worthy of a discussion at WP:RSN--but let's not forget that this is all primary information.

      There's quite a bit of discussion about their reliability, with airlines apparently doubting the site, Der Spiegel using its information, and the site itself claiming reliability and raising its visibility. I think, to keep things on the safe side, that we should continue to use secondary sources and, given the misinformation and doubt about things as basic as flight routes, to tread slowly and carefully. Drmies (talk) 17:06, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

FlightRadar24 are quoted as a source earlier in the article :o) They use a network of volunteers with transponder receivers that feed them the received data in real time (or at least within a few seconds - internet-permitting). In any case, transponder timestamps and positions come from GPS signals - so even if it takes a while to reach FlightRadar24 it will still be a record of where the aircraft was at that time. Montenegroman (talk) 17:12, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Even if it is reliable under normal circumstances it may not be set up to deal with unusual sitations like this (NB the distance is only about 15 km). Alternative explanations (1) Flightrader may use some kind of extrapolation based on speed and altitude (2) Do not claim precision for cruising altitude at the 15 km (as that does not matter in normal situations) (3) May have made some errors/extrapolations to cover with temporary loss of signal (normal plane movement does not have a transponder disappears permanently). Nothing unusual following any of those; and it would explain the difference in location (which is fairly small). Arnoutf (talk) 17:13, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

OK then, let's look at a minute earlier: At 1320 UTC MH17 transmitted (itself) that it was at 33,000ft (atmittedly this is an approximation as - at those altitides - we are talking in flight levels). Its heading was 118 degrees and had an airsped of 490knots. Its position was slightly south of Rozsypne. All I am trying to get accross here is that MH17 did NOT fly directly to the crash site like the maps show. Montenegroman (talk) 17:35, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Just to note the signals from aircraft ADSB are ±25 feet. MilborneOne (talk) 17:36, 20 July 2014 (UTC) COI statement I am an FR24 date feeder

Would it make sense to add detailed time of the events directly preceding the crash listed on the timeline on 17 July, like this:


  • 14:13 UTC RIA publishes information on "another An-26 shot down by the self-defence", who estimated its crash site to be near "Progress" mine, 10 km south from the actual crash site of MH17.[1] According to LifeNews article published 15 minutes later, the alleged An-26 was shot down at 18:00 UTC.[2]
  • 15:23 UTC RIA announces that MH17 has crashed in eastern Ukraine[3]

This information is currently in the article, but spread over several sections, and it makes much more sense when it's presented in a single timeline. Pawel Krawczyk (talk) 17:41, 20 July 2014 (UTC)


There is no point in analyzing primary source data as we cannot have the WP article include prose based on the analysis or conclusions of such original research. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 17:42, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
So a recording made of a radio-transmission by the aircraft itself, just a minute before it's final contact, giving its Time, Alt, Airspeed, Heading, Lat and Long is just "prose based on the analysis or conclusions of ... original research". Montenegroman (talk) 19:16, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
Yes and your comments above don't even really belong on the talk page so please stop speculating here. Point to published analysis and don't offer your own. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 23:45, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
According to the New York Times [ http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/07/17/world/europe/maps-of-the-crash-of-malaysian-airlines-flight-mh17.html ] - on the last map on the page the "Last known location" was "4:21 p.m. local time". The New York Times stated: "Source: Flight path data from flightradar24.com". Montenegroman (talk) 09:07, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Bodies

Now reports that "Pro-Russian rebels 'stole bodies from MH17 crash site'": [3]. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:05, 19 July 2014 (UTC):

Just taking it to a new low... TheAirplaneGuy (talk) 11:06, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
Surely there is justification for moving bodies, as quickly as possible, to a secure central location? It's just common decency. I'm not sure how this counts as "stealing". Martinevans123 (talk) 11:14, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
Gazeta Wyborcza (in Polish, you can use Google Translate): According to Ukrainian government, the rebels have transported 38 bodies to the morgue in Donetsk and declared to carry out autopsies themselves. Local sources claim that the rebels do this to hinder the investigation. They also reportedly started to look for large vehicles to transport the wreckage to Russia. http://wiadomosci.gazeta.pl/wiadomosci/1,114875,16348805,Rzad_Ukrainy__rebelianci_wywoza_ciala_ofiar_katastrofy.html
My comment: If the wreckage is indeed moved across the border, don't expect to ever see it again. Poland is still waiting for Russians to return us the wreckage of our presidential plane which crashed in April 2010. Mayast (talk) 11:24, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
Yes, obviously not as simple as just moving bodies to a morgue. But such a deliberate move would, I'm sure, be seen internationally as an even greater outrage. I wonder where the black boxes are by now. Buried even before the passengers, I wouldn't be surprised. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:32, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
Yes, all Russians are evil, aren't they? FFS, drop the anti-anybody conspiracy crap. Concentrate on finding excellent sources of information that can improve this article. HiLo48 (talk) 12:07, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for clarifying that point for us, HiLo48. But the black boxes have already been given to Russian "investigators" haven't they? Or that was the intention of the separatists in the area? And since then? Not exactly very visible, are they. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:11, 19 July 2014 (UTC
TECHNICAL NOTE - two military/flight experts on the national news this morning - two diff networks - said the 'black boxes' will be useless as far as determining if the plane was hit by a missile. They could determine the time of impact in that the telemetry would suddenly cease. FYI. HammerFilmFan (talk) 16:28, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
Other experts (such as David Learmount if Flight International for example) will tell you that the FDR and CVR can at least rule out other causes of aircraft loss, like mechanical failure, hijacking, aircrew incapacitation, etc. etc. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:54, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
How does that post contribute to improving this article? There's far to much POV on display on this page. HiLo48 (talk) 12:18, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
Can we please go back to the original topic (the bodies being moved) and look for more ref sources on this? — Mayast (talk) 12:30, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
[4] - 'Second black box recovered' from crash site. I think this should be added. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:04, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

In the spirit of WP:NPOV, a few minutes ago TVP Info cited the separatists on air (more precisely, I think they cited Alexander Borodai), saying that they are moving bodies to the morgue just to prevent them from decaying in the sun. Mayast (talk) 12:48, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

BBC NEWS 24 have reported the same. As I said, I'd say that was just common decency. They also said they have been moved only to the side of the road (presumably from the middle of corn fields etc.). Martinevans123 (talk) 13:42, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
They very well might consider it common decency, however that place and bodies are technically part of the crime scene, I doubt this is helpfull in solving this. SeraV (talk) 14:19, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
Our opinions here are irrelevant of course. I am unable to find any firm written source for the movement of bodies. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:42, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
Common decency would be allowing OCDE experts into the crash site along with a free access to the Ukrainian government experts to secure the crash site and move the bodies instead of threatening them and forbidding any access to the crash site for families or international experts. SkywalkerPL (talk) 09:55, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
The bodies are now on refrigerated trains: [5] Martinevans123 (talk) 21:42, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
To quote OCDE from the article: "It basically looks like the biggest crime scene in the world right now, guarded by a bunch of guys in uniform with heavy firepower who are quite inhospitable". SkywalkerPL (talk) 10:38, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 20 July 2014

Please reorder the nationalities list by the highest to lowest number. Official sources, like that of the Malaysia Airlines, list the number of passengers and their nationalities from highest to lowest number. More pages also have the table in the intuitive and much more useful numerical order, such as: Japan Airlines Flight 123, Air India Flight 182, Iran Air Flight 655, American Airlines Flight 587, Air New Zealand Flight 901, United Airlines Flight 175, Garuda Indonesia Flight 152, Korean Air Flight 801, EgyptAir Flight 990, China Airlines Flight 676, Birgenair Flight 301, LOT Flight 5055, Kenya Airways Flight 431, PIA Flight 268. A complete alphabetical order may make sense if no nationalities are overrepresented or the official source has them listed so. A rationalization made at this page that the alphabetical order is more neutral does not make any sense to me. Supersaiyen312 (talk) 12:04, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

It's a sortable table, so you can get it to sort numerically without difficulty, while the current format makes it easier to find each country. Moreover, I note that the first example you gave, Japan Airlines Flight 123, doesn't have them in numerical order. With that in mind, I'll do it if people agree, but only if. Nyttend (talk) 12:11, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
I would agree with this proposal as most other articles about aviation disasters use that format. Also, the 'dual nationality' column should be removed because it would be almost impossible to make it complete and it unnecessarily clutters and inflates the table. It would be much more useful to instead have 'passenger', 'crew' and 'total' columns as these are also used on most aviation disaster articles and for simplicity and consistency I think it's best to follow the standard format as much as possible. Below is how the table for MH17 would look if it followed the format used on most other aviation disaster articles. OakleighPark 12:20, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
Nationality Passengers Crew Total
 Netherlands 193 0 193
 Malaysia 28 15 43
 Australia 27 0 27
 Indonesia 12 0 12
 United Kingdom 10 0 10
 Belgium 4 0 4
 Germany 4 0 4
 Philippines 3 0 3
 Canada 1 0 1
 New Zealand 1 0 1
Total 283 15 298
I agree with this table. With multiple citizenships, passports and permanent residence, it is a slippery slope to report anything other then the nationality that the deceased asserted at boarding. WWGB (talk) 13:21, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
The table we've currently got is frankly baffling. Please can we use this? -- Pingumeister(talk) 13:30, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
No, not every page uses the same layout. The current table layout is fine. Kirothereaper (talk) 14:00, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
I've reopened this template as the edit has yet to be made. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 13:36, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
Nyttend, this edit makes sense to me, as second guessing dual citizenship (or even if it is sourced) doesn't really add anything, while using their declared citizenship does. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 14:07, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
That means all dual citizenships should stay completely out of it then. Kirothereaper (talk) 14:22, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
I have no opinion elsewhere, but for the purpose of this chart, it makes sense to only focus on their declared citizenship when boarding the plane. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 14:25, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
And it does focus on their declared citizenship. Kirothereaper (talk) 14:31, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
The issue is that, while the boarding passports for all passengers are known, not every dual citizenship is. Thus, listing boarding passports is accurate, whilst also including dual citizenship is inaccurate because it will almost definitely be incomplete. We need to keep the article as accurate as possible so I suggest changing the table format. OakleighPark 04:13, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
I am firmly opposed to doing this, we do not need an entire column dedicated to the crew section that are all from one country. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:58, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
In this situation it could seem somewhat unnecessary, but on the official sources for the people onboard, passengers and crew are separated. As the distinction is seen to be notable by the most official source available (the passenger manifest), I think that it is notable enough to be in the article. OakleighPark 04:13, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
@Supersaiyen312: @Nyttend: @Dennis Brown: Consensus on this new table? It seems to have been forgotten about. -- Pingumeister(talk) 12:54, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
The article's no longer protected. Nyttend (talk) 13:05, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Malaysia Airlines statement or Ukrainian ATC inconsistencies?

In the 4th para of the crash section . . . Malaysia Airlines confirms it received notification from Ukrainian ATC that it had lost contact with flight MH17 at 1415 (GMT) at 30km from Tamak waypoint, approximately 50km from the Russia-Ukraine border. But isn't the Tamak waypoint virtually ON the border?? Montenegroman (talk) 13:46, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Separatists vs. Rebels

In line with the goal of using NPOV, I propose the word "separatists" should be used instead of "rebels" or "terrorists" when referring to the Donetsk and Lugansk separatist movements. The reason is that terrorist and rebels both pack the assumption of legitimate versus illegitimate. Unlike the Basque separatists, The Donetsk and Lugansk separatists are not known to have deliberately targeted noncombatants, which is the definition of terrorism. They are rightly defined as separatist movements. Even the Basque separatists are referred to as "separatists" even though they might also fit the definition of terrorist and rebels. Cadwallader (talk) 23:00, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

It's the same debate all over again. Read some of the above from content headers please, there already were at least two similar discussions. As per my POV, since multiple sources use the word "terrorists" (even the ones coming from the country where this is based), it would be specifically hard to sway from the term, and even harder when it gets to direct quotations. My personal opinion isn't ambigious, I too think this word's a little too harsh. But by said NPOV, we can't just invent ways of binding information to appear as we like it to. Spaceinvadersaresmokinggrass (talk) 01:26, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
"The word "Terrorism" is politically loaded and emotionally charged. The Donbass separatist movements were backed by a democratic referendum in Lugansk and Donetsk. The US-backed Kiev regime has called the separatists "terrorists" from the beginning of the conflict, however, this is a political use of the term for the purpose of demonizing political opponents. Prior the downing of flight MH17, the Donbass separatists are not known to have deliberately targeted civilian populations. Kiev, by contrast, has been shelling the cities of Donetsk and Lugansk with heavy artillery and aircraft for the past month, causing over 250 civilian deaths in Lugansk alone. An encyclopedia using NPOV does not follow the lead of politicians in using politically loaded words to describe one side of the conflict.
From WP:NPOV "Prefer nonjudgmental language. A neutral point of view neither sympathizes with nor disparages its subject (or what reliable sources say about the subject), although this must sometimes be balanced against clarity. Present opinions and conflicting findings in a disinterested tone." Cadwallader (talk) 09:45, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
That simply means don't put there what you just wrote above, even if it isn't OR. Honest, I don't understand how can WP editors make "conclusions" on anything by simply combining content from the sources. If a source says "Donbass terrorists downed a plane" and another one says "Separatist insurgency continues in Donbass", and yet another one says "The rebels hid evidence from the plane", why can't we have all three terms appear on WP? I personally don't find it harder to read than if it were stating "separatists" or "rebels" or even "insurgents" all over. Spaceinvadersaresmokinggrass (talk) 13:09, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
As I pointed out in the opening paragraph, news media and encyclopedia's have always called the Basque "separatists" even though they engage in terrorism. It seems to be already established as the correct NPOV word to use for supporters of breakaway regions. Cadwallader (talk) 13:50, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
Russian President Vladimir Putin and government officials observing a moment of silence in memory of the victims

I've restored an official Kremlin photograph of Russian officials observing a moment of silence in memory of the victims because it is directly related to Russia's reactions. I know some may think they're directly responsible for the crash, and that may indeed be the case, but we're not here to make speculations before the investigation is over. -A1candidate (talk) 12:41, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

This picture is not important. I mean, it's not more important than Obama talking to Porosenko, no matter who's related to what. The plane crash concerns only three countries: Netherlands (biggest loss), Malaysia (their plane) and Ukraine (their territory). That's it. Anything else is would just be an observer, not the impacted side. Spaceinvadersaresmokinggrass (talk) 13:01, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
The picture is significantly more important than Obama talking to Porosenko because it shows reaction by alleged perpetrator. My very best wishes (talk) 13:11, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
Alleged by whom? Until real investigation takes place, those are only words. First. Second, the reaction is not more relevant than any other country observing the moment of silence. In fact, were Putin to NOT show any such reaction, the photograph of that would've been even more appropriate. Spaceinvadersaresmokinggrass (talk) 13:18, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
A nice, if hollow, gesture...but it ultimately imparts little value on the reader to see an image of men with heads bowed. Tarc (talk) 13:38, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
Alleged by majority of sources. This is reference work. What matters in WP context are the sources, not investigations. But I agree with Tarc. Perhaps we need a better image, and that one can be removed. My very best wishes (talk) 13:55, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Huffington Post

Is this a reliable source for the article? --John (talk) 10:23, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

I did some research and it is neither the best nor the worst. I took it out anyway. There should be better sources for an event like this. --John (talk) 16:24, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Reactions image - Russia

I think the LAST image that should be in the article should be the Russian government holding a moment of silence in honor of the victims of this crash. They are the ones who are responsible for it, and having this image in the article itself is disrespectful and disgraceful. Imagine having an image of Osama bin Laden praying for the victims of 9/11 on the main 9/11 article. Disgusting. § DDima 03:33, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

That is a very poor, completely non-neutral post. It does not help to improve the article. Please stop pushing your point of view here. HiLo48 (talk) 04:36, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
I've removed the image per WP:POV. Considering that Putin's government are in the picture for having provided separatists with munitions, neither Ukrainian or Russian officials using photo ops for the world stage are appropriate. Naturally, Wikipedia is WP:NOTCENSORED, but in terms of WP:IMAGE RELEVANCE I fail to see how anything outside of countries whose nationals were killed being represented is justifiable.
Personally, I don't see how the Netherlands flag at half-mast enhances the content. Images should only be used where they are informative. Per WP:NOT#JOURNALISM, the use of images for the sake of posturing and emotional impact is not acceptable. No more propaganda from contributors, thank you. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:22, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Sorry Iryna, but I would like to disagree. Assuming you and DDima are right, is not it remarkable and important that they observed the minute of silence? This is the reason the image should stay in the article. This is possibly the most remarkable image on the page. This is not propaganda, but merely statement of fact. You and DDima object on moral grounds; such criteria have nothing to do with creating encyclopedic content. My very best wishes (talk) 04:51, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
The image was already removed. I don't think it was useful indeed. However the half-mast Dutch flag moment is, as it illustrates what a great tragedy it is to the Dutch people. Commentaries such as the one many by OP are more than inappropriate, they should deserve disciplinary measures (starting with PM of Australia - jk) Spaceinvadersaresmokinggrass (talk) 04:54, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
@Spaceinvadersaresmokinggrass: It was removed because I removed it. It just so happened that I was working on several articles concurrently and didn't post my rationale until I'd finished presenting information at a DRN... so that was just a case of time lag. As is evident, I did leave the Dutch flag in place as it is relevant and unbiased: I was merely expressing my own take on the use of images when they start crowding the text. And, yes, Abbott is a moron. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:11, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
Humm, I didn't think we are allowed to call names on WP?! I mean, unless you want to get blocked, even if you really think that... or not? But whether you removed the picture or not is less important, than the fact it was actually removed. Until this section was created, I didn't think the same way, but now... Anyway, thanks. Spaceinvadersaresmokinggrass (talk) 12:58, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
@My very best wishes: While I understand your thought process on the use of the image, this is Wikipedia and it is not our place to work in subtleties (unless you want to add a caption stating "Hypocrisy on display in Putin's administration"). Whether the image is being used for being 'remarkable' (as you would have it) or as propaganda, the objective is WP:NPOV. Using it in either context violates the most fundamental policies of Wikipedia. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:18, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
To the contrary, the image must be included per WP:NPOV (it is on the subject of the page, and it is important). As about proper context, yes, I think we need a section like "perception in Russia" or "coverage in Russia", and it belongs there. My very best wishes (talk) 13:04, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
To be clear, not picture "MUST" be included per WP:NPOV. The inclusion of a picture is based on its relative relevance, the other potential pictures suggested or already in place, etc. The picture is relevant to the article, whether or not it should be included. If it was a picture of Putin riding a horse bareback, that would be irrelevant as it has nothing to do with the content. This does relate to the content directly. As to whether it's propaganda, that's wholly subjective. I don't think this picture needs to be included...there are probably better, more relevant pictures, but there's no reason it shouldn't be, all other things being equal. The content of the article is pretty clear about who's accusing whom, etc. No one's going to have their world shattered by an innocuous photo. That being said, it's not necessary to understanding the content, like most pictures, so it is a matter of editor consensus of preference.12.11.127.253 (talk) 16:50, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Deadliest...deadliest...deadliest...deadliest...third-deadliest...deadliest...second.

"With 298 deaths, the crash of MH17 is the deadliest aviation incident since the 11 September attacks.[22] It is also the deadliest-ever air incident in Ukraine, Boeing 777 hull loss,[23] and airliner shootdown.[24] It is the third-deadliest incident of aviation-related sabotage, behind Air India Flight 182 and the 11 September attacks.[25] The crash was Malaysia Airlines' deadliest major incident, as well as its second of the year, after the disappearance of Flight 370, on 8 March, en route to Beijing from Kuala Lumpur."

So we have:

  • Deadliest air incident since September 11
  • Deadliest air incident in Ukraine
  • Deadliest Boeing 777 hull loss
  • Deadliest airliner shootdown
  • Third-deadliest aviation-related sabotage (with details of first two)
  • Deadliest Malaysia Airlines incident
  • Second major Malaysia Airlines incident of 2014 (with details of first)

...is this really all necessary for the lead? Some of it is mildly useful, but I'm not sure what to trim. 9kat (talk) 16:02, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Trimmed slightly. --John (talk) 16:25, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
I think that "deadliest 777 hull loss" is unnecessary--if it was downed by a missile then the aircraft make doesn't matter. Deadliest airliner shootdown seems also a point of trivia--didn't the airliner the USS Vincennes shoot have only six fewer people? Third deadliest aviation sabotage--is third place notable? Deadliest MA incident--again, wasn't it nearly 300 on the most recent one? So I think that that should be trimmed, at least from the lead, if not from the article. Geogene (talk) 17:03, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Good place for a memorial image?

This image was recently uploaded to Commons, and could be used in this article. However, I'm not sure of a good place to put it. It wouldn't really fit in the Reactions section. Any suggestions? -- Pingumeister(talk) 15:21, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

I think Reactions would be perfectly reasonable. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:51, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
The current image in the reactions section is a copyright violation so it could replace that one. --Lewis Hulbert (talk) 16:59, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

I ended up creating a Memorials section and placing the image there. -- Pingumeister(talk) 17:07, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Protected edit request: Change "accident" to "incident"

In the introduction and potentially other areas, accident should be changed to incident. Since the exact cause is unknown, it is impossible to tell whether or not the crash was an accident. Further, the airplane was likely shot down by a missile, and targeted missile strikes are generally not accidents. 108.94.106.53 (talk) 03:21, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

This is definitely an accident as per FAA and NTSB definitions. Note that the NTSB defines an accident as per part 830 of regulations as "an occurrence associated with the operation of an aircraft which takes place between the time any person boards the aircraft with the intention of flight and all such persons have disembarked, and in which any person suffers death or serious injury, or in which the aircraft receives substantial damage.". Given the loss of life and total loss of aircraft, it is most definitely an accident as defined by aviation authorities worldwide. We do not need to know the cause at this point to be able to classify it as an accident. --DigitalRevolution (talk) 17:24, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Comparison with September 11 attacks

The article says "With 298 deaths, the crash of MH17 is the deadliest aviation incident since the September 11 attacks". Those only involved a total of 246 people on four planes. This is one plane with 298 deaths. I know there were many others killed in the September 11 attacks, but it seems a weird comparison to me. I'm not sure what it demonstrates. HiLo48 (talk) 08:51, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

True, it does not say much; although implicitly it raises terrorism associations (not very neutral is it?). It is the largest single airplane incident since 1985, but that was way back in a different generation of airplanes and attributed to incorrect repairs so that comparison is also not that relevant. I ma ok with removal. Arnoutf (talk) 09:24, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
I'm not sure what it adds to the article. Geogene (talk) 17:30, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Mention "Grabovo"

Many news reports name Hrabove as Grabovo, its alternative name. As a non-Russian-speaker, they look different enough that I would think they were different places. Should the article mention that they both refer to the same village? cmɢʟee⎆τaʟκ 17:09, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

No because this is irrelevant. WP uses original Ukrainian names for towns located within Ukraine, hence "Hrabove" prevails. There was a consensus on this recently. Spaceinvadersaresmokinggrass (talk) 17:21, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
WP:UKROM specifies that we use the Ukrainian National transliteration for Ukrainian place names, with the exception of Kiev. RGloucester — ☎ 17:32, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
Fair enough, I've read WP:UKROM and understand the guideline. However, that doesn't stop other parties (including reputable sources) from using "Grabovo", which may confuse readers (I was, initially). How about a quick mention, e.g. "The plane crashed near the village of Hrabove (also transliterated as Grabovo) just north of Torez, a city in eastern Ukraine's Donetsk Oblast, as it was approaching the Russian border."? cmɢʟee⎆τaʟκ 17:47, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
In Ukrainian, the name would read Грабове, not Грабово. So it's not "transliterated as", but rather "Russian name". Spaceinvadersaresmokinggrass (talk) 17:50, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
"Grabovo" is a Russian transliteration. It would need to be specified that it is Russian, and not Ukrainian. RGloucester — ☎ 17:52, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Should MH17 Boeing 777 Plane Crash, Ukraine (Jul 2014) be used as a source in the "Crash" section (as it currently is - see ref 81) or should it be moved to the "External links" section? G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 17:33, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

The latter. --John (talk) 17:53, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. Done. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 18:00, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
Should not really link to it at all wikipedia is not a replacement for Google (other search engines are available). MilborneOne (talk) 17:59, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Reactions

I've never seen the need for "reactions": they're words, that's all, and this is an encyclopedia. However, responses in particular by Germany, Ireland, Indonesia, Australia, Romania, and South Africa are particularly meaningless from an encyclopedic point of view, and I suggest removal. Same actually goes for NATO. Unless some responding entity is involved with the investigation or the disaster in some important way, their reaction is not important. And if a country loses one or a few citizens, that doesn't make their reaction important per se; from that rationale, responses by the Dutch, for instance, do have relevance. Drmies (talk) 15:31, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Is it okay if I say that I disagree? (I may give reasoning in just a short while) Dustin (talk) 15:35, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Actually, I agree, but everyone seems to freak out when you remove them. For some reason, editors find something of value from the platitudes, which are quite predictable. In this case, there may be some worth while because of the nature of the "accident", but most aren't that informative. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 15:37, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes, people saying they're shocked adds nothing, but on what planet would it ever be considered remotely unimportant that NATO said "It is important that a full international investigation should be launched immediately, without any hindrance, to establish the facts and that those who may be responsible are swiftly brought to justice"? Since NATO has absolutely no role to play in aircrash investigations or indeed international justice, but has a large role to play in any potential military conflict in Eastern Europe that might arise from this incident, I think a reaction like this is of eminent importance.

  • The issue I see right now with reactions is that they are very fluent and can quickly become outdated. When you have a current event like this, the responses have a tendency to change on a daily basis. There is also the issue of who do we include, when everyone is issuing statements on a daily basis. Having said that, it's obvious that the international community is reacting to this incident, so I believe there should be some sort of limited inclusion of international responses to reflect what is being reported by the sourcing.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 16:11, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
I say remove anything that states "deepest condolences", because, obviously, we're dealing with a tragedy. However, Malaysia, Netherlands, Ukraine and Russia (and Novorossiya) should remain no matter what, and always be kept on top. Spaceinvadersaresmokinggrass (talk) 16:17, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
I would suggest remove everything from this section except Ukraine, Russia and "Novorossiya". My very best wishes (talk) 17:03, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
  • I don't know who added "on what planet is it unimportant etc.", but, well, on this planet. What NATO says is not of any kind of substance at all; NATO isn't even involved nor, according to Rutte (on the live blog of de Volkskrant, should they be involved. We should not include a NATO platitude on the off-chance that in the future they may be involved in a future potential military conflict that results from this. Cutting everything but the three suggested by "My very best wishes" seems a bit drastic to me. Obviously the Dutch are playing a main role in the recuperation of the bodies, and Malaysia is involved directly as an affected country. One could argue the same for Australia, with its large body count. So the list drawn up by "Spaceinvaders" seems fair to me. Drmies (talk) 19:24, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Canada is imposing further sanctions against Russia. Foreign minister Baird said “The Kremlin may not have pulled the trigger, but it certainly loaded the gun and put it in the murderer’s hand.” - perhaps this should be added to reactions. See this CBC article: http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/malaysia-airlines-flight-mh17-canada-to-sanction-russia-1.2713132
  • The Netherlands’ Public Prosecution Service has launched an official investigation (suspicion of war crimes, murder and intentional shooting down of a civil airplane).[1]. (As I don't know what the sanctions warnings are about and the sanctions are discretionary, I am reluctant to add the info to the page and decided to add it to the talk instead.) As arnoutf already indicated below, the Dutch are also in charge of international coordination as of 20 July; priority is recovery and repatriation of the remains.[2]

References

  1. ^ http://www.nrc.nl/nieuws/2014/07/21/om-opent-onderzoek-naar-neerstorten-mh17/
  2. ^ http://www.nrc.nl/nieuws/2014/07/20/nederland-krijgt-internationale-coordinatie-vliegramp-oekraine/

References in an article talk page

Is there a way to get a handle on this? There's now 45 references cluttering up the bottom of the page from various sections above where editors are either suggesting new text or complaining about why text was removed. Tarc (talk) 14:07, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

The ref and /ref tags need to be removed from the relevant section to stop them appearing here at the end of the page. WWGB (talk) 14:28, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
Was hoping there was an easier way. I'd thought that refs didn't display unless there was a corresponding {{reflist}} tag below, but I must be behind the times. Tarc (talk) 14:33, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
@Tarc: I'm pretty sure it's a recent development - at least, I've only started noticing it on the new pages patrol recently. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 16:29, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
Cleaned up for now using a combination of reflist and bare URLs. WWGB (talk) 14:42, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
Thank you! Will this continue to happen or is there a perm fix?-- Isaidnoway (talk) 16:19, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
@G S Palmer, Isaidnoway, Tarc, and WWGB: There is no permanent fix in the offing. So long as people add <ref>...</ref> at any point after the last {{reflist}} or <references />, an automatic reflist will appear after the last thread on the page. When this happens, the thing to do is to add a {{reflist}} to each section that doesn't already have one, and where there is at least one <ref>...</ref>. However, it must not be the last thing in the thread, because that will prevent the archive bots from seeing the last timestamp in the thread, so won't archive it. I generally put the reflist after the post that includes the ref, like this. BTW I'm not watching this page, so if you reply to me, please make sure that you include {{replyto|Redrose64}} so that I get a notification. --Redrose64 (talk) 17:03, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
Somewhere else I encountered this template {{reflist-talk}}. Didn't know it before, but perhaps of use here? Arnoutf (talk) 17:06, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
{{reflist-talk}} is essentially a normal {{reflist}} wrapped in code that puts it in a box with a white background and a dashed border, plus the word "References" in boldface. You can see it in action at Talk:Concrete#Worldwide CO2 emissions and global change where there are two. --Redrose64 (talk) 18:39, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Novorossiya is now a country, and Girkin's their national spokesman

Really? 173.228.54.18 (talk) 06:28, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes. But Girkin being the national spokesman would in my view happen to be incorrect. TheGRVOfLightning (talk) 06:38, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes, this needs to be fixed as well.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:48, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

I suggest adding a footnote next to 'Novorossiya', stating that 'Novorossiya is a state with limited recognition that has declared independence from Ukraine' in order to prevent confusion. EDIT: I take this back as I realise that instead of clarifying that Novorossiya is not a country, it would likely have the opposite effect on readers. OakleighPark 08:21, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Woa!! Oppose. Novorossiya is absolutely not a 'country'. It is a part of the Ukraine over which an illegal and, so far, completely internationally unrecognized claim has been made by the rebels. Or do you propose that Wikipedia be the first to give them credibility? Ex nihil (talk) 08:35, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
It is recognized by Russia, and so far as I remember, Russia has recognized Nagorno-Karabakh, Ingushetia and South Ossetia, all of which are now distinct countries. If Novorossiya is not a country, then why would people be dying for nothing? Stupid claim. Spaceinvadersaresmokinggrass (talk) 22:57, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
Do you have any source which states that Novorossja is country recognized by Russia? My understanding is that only other "Non Countries" as South Ossetia or Abkhazia have recognized Novorossja. Furthermore Ingushetia is part of Russia - Russia has neither recognized Chechnya nor Dagestan nor Ingushetia as countries and is fighting in this region for decades in order to prevent independence. 46.7.56.247 (talk) 18:51, 21 July 2014 (UTC)M.
Sorry, I didn't mean to suggest that the article should recognise Novorossiya as a country; in fact I was trying to suggest that it be clarified that Novorossiya is in fact not a country. OakleighPark 10:15, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
I agree, we should definitely either removed "Novorossiya" or move it to the very end and place it under unrecognised entities.Jeppiz (talk) 08:45, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
Indeed, Novorossiya is not a country. Arnoutf (talk) 08:49, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Novorossiya deserves to be listed, somehow, since they are a direct player in this crash (they control the territory), regardless of their disputed legal status. Maybe Novorossiya should not be listed under "countries" with the rest of the UN member states, but rather under a new category, such as "disputed entities". See the Response section of the Shelling of Donetsk, Russia article as an example for the correct way to treat Novorossiya. --Tocino 08:47, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Or as a sub section of Ukrainian response? Arnoutf (talk) 08:55, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

"Novorossiya" does not exist, and thus should not be listed in any way, shape for form alongside legitimate nations. What should be done is create another section for the non-nation opinions deemed relevant. There you can list NATO, the UN, the ICAO, alongside the statement of the terrorist/separatist/whatever group. Tarc (talk) 11:56, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Without commenting on whether we should separate them, Tarc has a key point here which seems to have been missed in this discussion. Novorossiya is listed alongside NATO, UN, ICAO and the EU in the "by country section", and the last 4 are definitely not countries. I believe it's been like this for a while since I recall seeing it about a day ago. I considered fixing it at the time but was lazy and thought someone else would, it seems it's still the same now. Nil Einne (talk) 15:15, 20 July 2014 (UTC) Edit: (The Novorossiya thing is new, IIRC when I saw it at the time the rebel response was under the Ukraine one.) Nil Einne (talk) 15:22, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
I added the rebel response in the first place, so maybe to indicate that it is not an actual country, could you list them like this? –
  •  Ukraine – Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko vowed support for a Dutch probe into the crash, which he called an act of terrorism. He offered condolences for the air disaster in a telephone conversation with Dutch Prime Minister Mark Rutte. Ukrainian citizens brought flowers to the Dutch and Malaysian embassies in Kiev in support.
    •  Novorossiya – Pro-Russian rebel commander Igor Girkin was quoted as stating that "a significant number of the bodies weren't fresh", although he stated that he could not confirm the information. He followed up by saying "Ukrainian authorities are capable of any baseness"; Girkin also said that blood serum and medications were found in the plane's remnants in large quantities.

Dustin (talk) 15:21, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

I don't even think you should link New Russia in this case. It makes more sense to link Donetsk People's Republic, or perhaps Donbass People's Militia. The existence of Novorossiya on the ground is almost nil. It is more like a concept, then a reality. The DPR and the LPR continue to operate independently, Girkin has no involvement with the LPR that I can see. RGloucester — ☎ 15:36, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
So like this maybe?
  •  Ukraine – Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko vowed support for a Dutch probe into the crash, which he called an act of terrorism. He offered condolences for the air disaster in a telephone conversation with Dutch Prime Minister Mark Rutte. Ukrainian citizens brought flowers to the Dutch and Malaysian embassies in Kiev in support.
    •  Donetsk People's Republic – Pro-Russian rebel commander Igor Girkin was quoted as stating that "a significant number of the bodies weren't fresh", although he stated that he could not confirm the information. He followed up by saying "Ukrainian authorities are capable of any baseness"; Girkin also said that blood serum and medications were found in the plane's remnants in large quantities.

Dustin (talk) 15:44, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

It is hard to tell. There has been a lot of inter-insurgent conflict lately. Girkin's forces, after having retreated from Sloviansk, fought armed battles against the existing DPR leadership in Donetsk city. Supposedly, the DPR is now under Girkin's control. Fundamentally, though, his position is that of Supreme Commander of the Donbass People's Militia. I recommend using the Donbass People's Militia flag, just to be safe. RGloucester — ☎ 15:51, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Briefing of the Ministry of Defense of Russia

Is it possible to publish this article?

Materials published on the website of the Ministry of Defense of Russia:
Russian Ministry of Defense a special briefing on the disaster in the sky flight MH17 Ukraine
Objective control materials
These objective Unified control of air traffic related accident flight MH17
In English 213.87.132.87 (talk) 16:49, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Russian stories are represented are they not? RS should be easy to find that present the case of the Ministry of dEfence of Russia -their ideas about Ukrainian jets are already attracting responses [6] - apparently the Russian Wikipedia page for these jets was changed to aid the kremlin story - bit desperate - - I don't think wp should just lay out endless reams of putin propaganda like you do thoughSayerslle (talk) 17:02, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
Bit surprised they haven't yet suggested GoldenEye satellites. Arnoutf (talk) 17:07, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
Data from of social networks objective performance objective control systems? OK. 213.87.132.87 (talk) 17:14, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
What do you mean? Social networks are generally not reliable sources. Arnoutf (talk) 17:16, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
"Removal of the Su-25 of "Boeing-777" was from 3 to 5 km. According to its characteristics of the Su-25 is able to briefly reach a height of 10,000 meters in the composition of its standard weapons included rocket class "air-air" R-60, capable of capturing and hit a target at a distance up to 12 km, and is guaranteed at a distance of 5 km." -- 213.87.132.87 (talk) 17:26, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
Ok so Russian medias use the allegation that a Su-25 was present near the airliner at the time of the crash. Nobody has the right to dispute this claim as nobody can confirm it. It's just another version of events. Please, drop the "Putin propaganda" and other insults here. Thanks, Spaceinvadersaresmokinggrass (talk) 17:28, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Yes, this is all a part of conspiracy by US to provoke WWIII. BTW, did not you know that "MH17 is actually MH370, that Malaysia Airlines flight that disappeared into the Indian Ocean ... the plane didn’t disappear at all, it was taken to an American military base, Diego-Garcia.” - see here. My very best wishes (talk) 17:34, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
Sigh... Spaceinvadersaresmokinggrass (talk) 17:38, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Spaceinvadersaresmokinggrass, very strange... I saw a video, where the paved road lay a girl that fell out of the plane of blood around her not at all, some separatists claim that the bodies comes putrid smell, blue color, passport passengers in stop achku stacked and packed, some passport already redeemed and invalid, on board nebilo products that usually are stored in tons of heavy-duty containers. Board intends to differ by a single letter, and have identical coloring Boeings... Strange, but it seems to me that this is nonsense. 213.87.132.87 (talk) 18:05, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
We need proof to back it all up. Without proof, this is as good as that McCain's statement and doesn't belong here. Spaceinvadersaresmokinggrass (talk) 19:05, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

re-name article

The name of the article at present in and of itself is A) not sufficient to convey the true substance of the situation and story and issue, and B) is somewhat misleading in a way. This article is NOT really about "Malaysia" per se, nor about a "Malaysian airplane" or "flight" primarily. But about a mistaken shoot-down of a civilian commercial aircraft, in general, over Ukraine, presumably probably by pro-Russia rebels and separatists. The emphasis arguably should be on THAT, in the article name and wording. Nothing in the article name even mentions the word "crash" or "shoot-down" or anything. Just a generic un-informing "airlines flight 17". It should be changed or modified, IMO. Regards. Gabby Merger (talk) 02:55, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Oppose – You propose that we change to use inconsistent formatting, which I consider to be unhelpful. Also, this is the actual name of the plane. The plane was owned by Malaysia Airlines, and the specific plane was "Flight 17". Dustin (talk) 02:58, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
Comment. Maybe I didn't make myself totally clear. But I never said that the name of the airplane by Malaysia should not be mentioned at all. But merely that the name of the article LACKS what the actual situation is about. It's not primarily about Malaysia, nor its airplane, per se. That is (to be frank) just happenstance. It's that it was a commercial civilian airplane in general, and that it was a shoot-down, by pro-Russia rebels (presumably). And since that's what the topic is definitely primarily about, why is that not conveyed anywhere in the article name? Gabby Merger (talk) 03:03, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
Oppose – This is the standard formatting. Every single aircraft wreck has the same title format of operator and flight number. Even the September 11th flights have individual articles, though the date on the template page links to the overall event. I think you simply don't understand the format or that Malaysia Airlines is a company, not a country. 108.94.106.53 (talk) 03:30, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
Comment. What you and the other editor don't seem to be getting is that this wasn't simply a "wreck" in some generic sense, like other plane crashes, going to the point of your "standard formatting" argument. It misses the point that this issue (that you hear constantly in the news) is about the WAR in Ukraine, and because of that war and fighting, this "shoot-down" took place. It's the context of warring that's been going on. And that's the main issue in the news. The "standard formatting" for airplane crashes argument misses that (for some reason) and is not all that relevant to the overall gist of this subject matter. This is not some run-of-the-mill "plane wreck". Regards. Gabby Merger (talk) 03:57, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
@Gabby Merger: This article is about the plane crash, and as such is named after the flight on which it occurred, as is the convention on Wikipedia: see List of airliner shootdown incidents and List of aircraft accidents and incidents resulting in at least 50 fatalities for more examples. There are separate articles for 2014 insurgency in Donbass and 2014 pro-Russian unrest in Ukraine, both of which are linked from this article. —sroc 💬 09:55, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
Oppose – Gabby Merger, information pertinent to the context you are discussing is to be found in the relevant articles which do deal with the conflict. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:38, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Note to editors (and archive request)

This TP page is getting pretty long, probably time part of it was archived?

Secondly - editors - PLEASE - do not copy/paste the entire references section from an article to the Talk Page - it is disruptive to read thru - and takes up far too much space - use links and brief summaries instead - anyone can go to the article to get the detailed un-congealed mess if need be. Thanks. HammerFilmFan (talk) 18:16, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

My point is, this active TP page is getting long - perhaps the parameters of the bot need tightening.HammerFilmFan (talk) 18:53, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
As far as I know it is set at 10 hours non activity so that is pretty tight. The traffic is just huge here. Arnoutf (talk) 18:59, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
That, and the fact that the archiving bots don't run constantly. This page is set to be archived by Lowercase sigmabot III (talk · contribs), which patrols once a day looking for threads ready for archiving. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:32, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
I thought lowercase sigmabot III only had daily runs at around 0000 UTC, so how does this "ten-hourly" thing work? Dustin (talk) 19:36, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
When the bot gets here sometime between 0000 and 0200 (UTC) it will archive threads that have been inactive for the previous ten hours up to that point (~1500 UTC). United States Man (talk) 19:42, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
(edit conflict) It does indeed start running at midnight, so when it reaches this page about an hour later, it'll archive off anything that was last posted to more than ten hours earlier than that - approximately 15:00 UTC today. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:43, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
So you're saying we have to deal with this massive page for over four more hours? It takes way too long to make a comment on this talk page currently in my opinion. That is too bad, I guess. Dustin (talk) 19:47, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

It didn't come by here last night for some reason, so it is massive today. I, being the one who initially set it to 10 hours when I first set it up, will now cut it down to 8 hours to see if it gets rid of anymore threads. I'll then move it out a good bit after tonight. United States Man (talk) 19:55, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

I just found and fixed two HTML comments that were improperly closed. They may have caused the bot to cough. BTW it's five more hours, not four: the bot starts in four hours time, but it takes at least an hour to get through all the other talk pages before it gets to this one. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:03, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

We are very sorry! What a terrible shame!

"Russian citizens brought flowers to the Dutch embassy in Moscow. Among the flowers was a note in English that read: "We are very sorry! What a terrible shame!" - Is this worth to be mentioned on Wikipedia? Looks like an anonymous person that happened to be in Moscow (that's all we know) wanted to turn all the blame for the plane crash to Russia and its people and luckily got quoted on Wikipedia. This cannot be referred as a general stance of ordinary Russians on the issue. There is even no proof that the note was written by a Russian. Wikipedia has become a propaganda machine. That's sad.— Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])

Even if it were signed by a Russian that still makes it a rather trivial issue; there may always be people who feel responsible but that does not make it sufficiently relevant to mention. I removed that fragment. The fact that Russian citizens showed their sympathy by brining flowers is relevant as far as I am concerned. Arnoutf (talk) 09:35, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
In addition to Arnoutf's point on triviality and the general point on the irrelevance of a single comment, I would note that the comment "We are very sorry! What a terrible shame!" doesn't in any way imply the person feels any responsibility for the crash. It easily the sort of thing a person will say in general as an expression of sympathy. It's hardly surprising if many Russians feel that way even if they feel that the Russian government has no responsibility and it's completely the fault of the Ukranian government. Nil Einne (talk) 20:10, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Malaysia_Airlines_Flight_17/Archive_5&oldid=1136983550"